Summations Only

You've asked a series of questions each of which seems to suggest that one poster or the other is an idiot.If you go back and read Jazzns post, it is pretty clear that he is proposing that a specific woman, namely Elizabeth Warren, might become president.

If you want to win, you must listen influence the largest number of voters. That does not necessarily mean influencing politically active or informed voters, but it might mean getting influential ones on your side. In fact, winning might very well mean duping uninformed voters.I'd also disagree that dirt poor people and uninformed people are predominantly conservative, or that becoming informed means being fed predominantly a conservative or liberal message. Being informed means being provided facts regardless of which side they favor.Of course, it appears that reality itself has a liberal bias, so perhaps that's one way to justify what you are saying. If fair and balanced means equal time based on ideology, perhaps ultra-conservatives do need a thumb on the scale.

A substantial number of 'us' think and vote just like the brother-in-law.

Romney quoted in the article cited by ramoss...

quote:

---

'Well I think because I'm on foreign soil I don't want to be creating new foreign policy for my country or in any way to distance myself in the foreign policy of our nation. But we respect the right of a nation to defend itself,'

---

As if Obama's position on Israel is different from any other presidents. Didn't Bush insist on and get Israeli restraint during the war with Iraq? Was such insistence to be considered not respecting the right of a nation to defend itself?

There is another possible meaning of fy's statement. The Republican ad is a distortion of what Obama actually said, but that distortion would not be a lie if Obama actually believes something similar to that distortion. It also would not be a lie, strictly speaking, if the person behind the ad believed the distortion.In other words, it isn't a lie if you actually believe it.For good or ill, some people believe all kinds of things about Obama regardless of what he actually says and does and despite all evidence to the contrary. I have no doubt that Buzsaw believes everything he says about Obama, no matter how ridiculous.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What would be the enforcement mechanism for such an agreement? I am trying to imagine all of the red states following the agreement when a cross-dressing, liberal, socialist, candidate wins the popular vote.I find it difficult to imagine a court enforcing the agreement. Presently, there is no clear constitutional mandate for the electors to even follow their states orders on how to vote.

That's my point.Currently a sizable number of states, many of them red states, do not even attempt to bind their delegates to voting as per the state election results. No one has ever been punished for failing to do so. The Electoral College

quote:

---

There is no federal law or constitutional provision requiring electors to vote for the party that nominated them, and over the years a number of electors have voted against the instructions of the voters. The most recent example of a faithless elector was probably an accident: in 2008, a Minnesota elector nominated by the Democratic party cast a ballot for John Edwards, the vice presidential running mate of John Kerry. It is not common for an elector to vote for the other party's candidate, however: remember that most electors are selected by the political party for their party loyalty, and many are party leaders. The last time an elector crossed party lines was in 1972, when an elector nominated by the Republican party cast his ballot for the Libertarian ticket.

​

Some states have passed laws that require their electors to vote as pledged. These laws may either impose a fine on an elector who fails to vote according to the statewide or district popular vote, or may disqualify an elector who violates his or her pledge and provide a replacement elector. None of these laws have been implemented -- no elector has ever been penalized or replaced -- nor have they been fully vetted by the courts.

---

State signs binding agreement; State elector votes for the Libertarian candidate instead of Romney, and state does .... ????

Gratuitous Hitler reference noted. Godwin vindicated again.

Perhaps they won't want to vote for Obama because they don't want to pay higher taxes. But the ad proposes a completely different reason. Unless you believe that a lie is okay in the service of a good cause, they your argument is not germane.

Wooossshhhh!!!